No Patent Infringement Found In Oracle vs. Google

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

No Patent Infringement Found In Oracle vs. Google

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @07:08AM from the and-there-we-go dept.

sl4shd0rk writes "Today, the jury in the Oracle vs. Google trial found no infringement of patents by Google. The jury deliberated about 30 minutes to reach the verdict, bringing an end to the second phase of the trial, and a beginning to the damage phase, which may be very little of what Oracle originally asked for. Still no word on API copyright issues. Judge Alsup will be ruling on that in the near future, and it will certainly have an impact on the developer community."

43 of 234 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Does this mean Java really is free? by jonniesmokes · 2012-05-23 07:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

If the APIs turn out to be non-copyrightable, does this mean we can really all enjoy/suffer Java for free?
1. Re:Does this mean Java really is free? by poetmatt · 2012-05-23 07:13 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The Jury was leaning heavily on them not being copyrightable anyway. See: https://twitter.com/FedcourtJunkie/status/205370887078285313
  
  We all just interviewed juror, who said jury was split 9-3 for google on copyright fair use. Um, wow.
2. Re:Does this mean Java really is free? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 07:14 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  It doesn't matter anyway. There were only nine lines of copied code and the only reason it was there is because the guy that submitted it originally to openJDK is the same guy that put it in Android. The judge learned java for this trial and even he said he could have wrote rangeCheck in a few minutes and had even done so accidentally many times.
  Suck it, Oracle. You lose. Good day, sir!
3. Re:Does this mean Java really is free? by GodInHell · 2012-05-23 07:19 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Muhahhaaha "fined" for the "time saved" in writing 9 lines of code that the judge already advised counsel he (the judge) could write in less than am afternoon. Ooooh look out, here cones a $10,000 fine. Quick, sell GOOG now!!!
4. Re:Does this mean Java really is free? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-05-23 07:20 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  If the APIs turn out to be non-copyrightable, does this mean we can really all enjoy/suffer Java for free?
  It's a great deal more important than that: If APIs are copyrightable, API-compatible implementations of anything without that thing's blessing would be on legally shaky ground. I'll leave imagining the technology world in an alternate universe where IBM simply sued Compaq for producing an API-compatible BIOS to the reader; but that's the sort of magnitude we are talking here...
5. Re:Does this mean Java really is free? by ColdWetDog · 2012-05-23 07:21 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Well, you missed first post Mr. I'm-new-here. But keep on trolling. Somebody might believe you.
  Come on editors. Catch a clue with this nonsense.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
6. Re:Does this mean Java really is free? by characterZer0 · 2012-05-23 07:31 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If they are copyrightable, will we all have to switch to Scala running on the JVM?
  If the APIs are copyrightable, the bytecode spec will also be copyrightable. So you cannot write a JVM without Oracle's permission. This was the problem for Apache Harmony. If APIs are found to be non-copyrightable but the bytecode spec still is for some reason, Google could write (or allow others to write) a Dalvik VM for other platforms and we could continue writing Java code but compile it for the DVM instead of the JVM.
  
  --
  Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
7. Re:Does this mean Java really is free? by ZeroSumHappiness · 2012-05-23 07:34 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Shit, juries get bribes? I need to stop trying to skip out on jury duty!
8. Re:Does this mean Java really is free? by Jeng · 2012-05-23 07:34 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  If it gets ruled that API's are copyrightable then this creates a whole new can of worms that will send many industries into absolute chaos.
  If it gets ruled that API's are not copyrightable then it is business as usual.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
9. Re:Does this mean Java really is free? by ais523 · 2012-05-23 07:47 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That wasn't the Jury deciding whether they were copyrightable; they'd been asked about their opinion assuming it was (juries are supposed to determine facts, rather than law). That was the jury (failing to) decide whether Google were nonetheless allowed to use the API under fair use, even if it were copyrighted.
  
  --
  (1)DOCOMEFROM!2~.2'~#1WHILE:1<-"'?.1$.2'~'"':1/.1$.2'~#0"$#65535'"$"'"'&.1$.2'~'#0$#65535'"$#0'~#32767$#1"
10. Re:Does this mean Java really is free? by dgatwood · 2012-05-23 07:54 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  It's a great deal more important than even you are suggesting. If APIs are copyrightable, then Linux and *BSD just became illegal for implementing POSIX without a license from The Open Group. Such a decision would absolutely have to be appealed up to SCOTUS, and if necessary, reversed by an emergency act of Congress. It simply cannot be allowed to stand, as it would essentially end Western civilization as we know it. Imagine 90% of the world's servers becoming illegal overnight. Imagine the machines that run 75% of the world's stock markets becoming illegal overnight. Such a decision would essentially bring the computing industry and every industry that depends on it to a grinding halt.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
11. Re:Does this mean Java really is free? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-05-23 08:17 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It could also be construed to cover virtually all protocols and file formats, as well, since those are descriptions of the 'interface' by which an application can interact with another system or data storage structure in a compatible way. You'd basically end up in a situation where interoperability would be possible only at the pleasure of the original vendor for the duration of an entire copyright term. That would be pretty dramatic.
12. Re:Does this mean Java really is free? by mounthood · 2012-05-23 08:22 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  If the APIs turn out to be non-copyrightable, does this mean we can really all enjoy/suffer Java for free?
  No, because Oracle will sue you for $6.1 billion anyway. The objective wasn't just money from Android, it was to assert control over Java. Oracle's actions since buying Sun have been consistent on this: making deals on OpenJDK for IBM to drop Harmony and Apple to drop their Java port, general patent FUD, and finally suing Google. With this ruling Oracle's control is clearly a financial 'might makes right' assertion without legal basis, but does that matter?
  
  --
  tomorrow who's gonna fuss
13. Re:Does this mean Java really is free? by Sesostris+III · 2012-05-23 08:33 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The judge in this case is also aware of the recent EU Court of Justice ruling, and asked to be briefed by both sides.
  
  See http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120503175821298
  
  --
  You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
14. Re:Does this mean Java really is free? by RatherBeAnonymous · 2012-05-23 08:36 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  If you recall, 2-3 weeks ago the jury ruled that Google had violated Oracle's copyrights on the Java API's. The caveat being that it is not established in US law whether or not API's are protected by copyright. The judge instructed the jury to deliberate as is API's are protected by copyright. Now, we are just waiting on the judge's ruling as to whether or not API's are protected by copyright. If he rules that they are not, which I personally expect will be the ruling, then the jury's ruling on the API copyright issue will be moot. This was the copyright issue mentioned in the article, not the rangeCheck code, which is apparently a non-issue.
15. Re:Does this mean Java really is free? by Bigby · 2012-05-23 08:38 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That more along the right path. However, I think it will just wind up like the patent industry. APIs will be used as blackmail against each other...effectively crowding out the little guys and startups.
16. Re:Does this mean Java really is free? by Forever+Wondering · 2012-05-23 08:55 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It doesn't matter anyway. There were only nine lines of copied code and the only reason it was there is because the guy that submitted it originally to openJDK is the same guy that put it in Android.
  IANAL, but if this is so, this would indicate the original submitter would be the copyright author for the code ("rangeCheck"). If s/he was not a Sun employee at the time (e.g. the submission was done as free software), s/he would be free to submit to both code bases. This person would be the only person in the world that has such right. Thus, rangeCheck is not even copied from one code base to another. Ergo, even if the code is identical, there is no copyright infringment.
  
  --
  Like a good neighbor, fsck is there ...
17. Re:Does this mean Java really is free? by s.petry · 2012-05-23 09:33 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Sadly, this spin has already been played over and over by the media. Somehow, a loss for Oracle in court is always deemed a "partial victory".. if you read the right articles.
  I'd recommend that you spend some time on Groklaw and read reviews by legal people on what these rulings really mean. While Groklaw is pro-opensource, their articles are pretty straight views of our legal system. Enough commentary is covered by people (many of which are Lawyers) to fill in gaps, and of course "can" be more biased.
  Many of these same magazines claimed that SCO was going to prevail over IBM, and every loss was a "Partial Victory". Groklaw was dead on, though it took a very long time for the courts to finally get things sorted out.
  Oh, and if you look back further many of these same magazines claimed that Microsoft had countless "partial victories" in the EU anti-trust case, the Iowa anti-trust case, and the US DOJ anti-trust case. See any trends you may wish to not follow?
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
18. Re:Does this mean Java really is free? by s.petry · 2012-05-23 09:37 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  On the plus side, anyone that implemented the TCP/IP protocols, HTTP, DNS, FTP, etc.. would immediately have to purchase licenses from the US Government, MIT, Berkley, UC, etc... We could solve the national debt of the USA in pretty much 1 verdict.
  This has been discussed in legal channels already, and would probably harm money grubbers much more than help them.
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
19. Re:Does this mean Java really is free? by Tough+Love · 2012-05-23 10:39 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Suck it, Oracle. You lose. Good day, sir!
  Couldn't happen to a nicer asshole.
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
20. Re:Does this mean Java really is free? by TrueSpeed · 2012-05-23 14:32 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It doesn't matter anyway. There were only nine lines of copied code and the only reason it was there is because the guy that submitted it originally to openJDK is the same guy that put it in Android. The judge learned java for this trial and even he said he could have wrote rangeCheck in a few minutes and had even done so accidentally many times.
  Suck it, Oracle. You lose. Good day, sir!
  Judge Alsup did not learn Java for this trial. He's a math major and was already familiar with other programming languages.
21. Re:Does this mean Java really is free? by Forever+Wondering · 2012-05-23 15:57 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  That depends on whether they assigned the copyright along with the submission. If they had already assigned the copyright to Sun (as I believe was required to have it accepted), then they would no longer have the right to submit it anywhere else. Such is the stupid world we live in, which is why I can easily believe that a developer would have forgotten they did it, especially on such a trivial function.
  Your point is well taken, so I did some checking. openJDK submissions require that you accept the "Oracle Contributor Agreement" [nee Sun]. From that document:
  
  2. With respect to any worldwide copyrights, or copyright applications and registrations, in your contribution:
  - you hereby assign to us joint ownership, and to the extent that such assignment is or becomes invalid, ineffective or unenforceable, you hereby grant to us a perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, worldwide, no-charge, royalty-free, unrestricted license to exercise all rights under those copyrights. This includes, at our option, the right to sublicense these same rights to third parties through multiple levels of sublicensees or other licensing arrangements;
  - you agree that each of us can do all things in relation to your contribution as if each of us were the sole owners, and if one of us makes a derivative work of your contribution, the one who makes the derivative work (or has it made) will be the sole owner of that derivative work;
  - you agree that you will not assert any moral rights in your contribution against us, our licensees or transferees;
  - you agree that we may register a copyright in your contribution and exercise all ownership rights associated with it; and
  - you agree that neither of us has any duty to consult with, obtain the consent of, pay or render an accounting to the other for any use or distribution of your contribution.
  The first two clauses appear to cover it. The joint ownership clause seems mostly concerned that any submission grants rights to Sun/Oracle to use the code. But, the original submitter retains parallel rights [as long as they don't try to revoke Oracle's right]. The derivative work clause implies that either party may make a derivative work without consulting the other and gets full rights to the new work.
  Thus, giving the rangeCheck function to Android is allowed by this agreement under either of these two clauses.
  
  --
  Like a good neighbor, fsck is there ...
Ouch by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 07:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

The jury deliberated about 30 minutes
That's kind of damning. Apparently Oracles case was so weak a group of largely non-technical people decided it was much of nothing in 30 minutes. That's basically the time it takes for them to go into the room, all get coffee and donuts and take a vote.
30 minutes - try 5 days by gus+goose · 2012-05-23 07:17 · Score: 4, Informative

Hmmm... Thursday last week till today... that's a about 30 minutes according to Oracle's 'simulations' ... ;-)

--
.. if only.
1. Re:30 minutes - try 5 days by Sunshinerat · 2012-05-23 09:07 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Hey, you are not allowed to publish Oracle's benchmark results!
  
  --
  Load New Commander (Y/N)?
30 Minutes? Try One Week by zjbs14 · 2012-05-23 07:18 · Score: 4, Informative

The jury has been deliberating on the patent infringement since last Wednesday. Not sure where the submitter for the 30 minutes from.

--
No sig, sorry.
No damage phase either by T.E.D. · 2012-05-23 07:19 · Score: 3, Informative

According to that Groklaw link in TFA, the jury has been dismissed and there will be no damages phase.

Our reporter provides this:

Clerk: Question 1: has Oracle proved by preponderance of evidence that Google infringed?
Claim 11: not proven 27: no 29: no 39: no 40: no 41: no
Question 2: not proven 1: no 20: no
Question 3: no answer, no response, not applicable.
Unanimous. The jury is dismissed. There will be no damages phase for them to endure.
1. Re:No damage phase either by squiggleslash · 2012-05-23 07:37 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Foreman: "Does anyone understand these patents?"
  Juror 7: "No, still don't."
  Juror 5: "My head hurts."
  Juror 6: "This better be over with soon, or I'm going to be the third juror to take a medical leave of absence. I can't stand this crap any more."
  Juror 2: "All I know is if we find Google guilty, we're going to have to sit here for another week deciding damages"
  {silence}
  Foreman: "Case dismissed?"
  Rest of jury in unison: "Not guilty!"
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
2. Re:No damage phase either by pesho · 2012-05-23 08:20 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  You forgot:
  Juror 3: What is this Oracle company doing? Never heard of them.
  Juror 4 (while pulling his android phone out): Me neither. Let me Google them.
Re:Didn't take long, did it? by zjbs14 · 2012-05-23 07:22 · Score: 4, Informative

They were deliberating since last week. Summary was wrong.

--
No sig, sorry.
Summary slightly wrong by ZombieBraintrust · 2012-05-23 07:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

There will be no damage phase. Judge has sent the jury home. Judge will handle damages himself based on agreements between Oracle and Google. Basically Oracle will get a few thousand for the 9 lines of code and a couple thousand for the test files. Then they will spend that money in one day in lawyer fees on the appeal. It is also important to note that this trial only covered 2 patents. Oracle can try again with different patents. However it should be noted that these were likely their best patents to use against Google.
1. Re:Summary slightly wrong by phoenix_rizzen · 2012-05-23 07:44 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Oracle started with 7 or 9 patents that they thought were worth $6 billion in damages/licensing/royalties/whatever.
  All but 2 of the patents ('104 and '520) were found to be invalid and rejected by the USPTO. The '104 patent was found to be preliminarily invalid after the trial started.
  And now Oracle is leaving with nothing but a huge invoice from the lawyers ... the same lawyers who lost the SCO trial(s). (Go figure.)
2. Re:Summary slightly wrong by DickBreath · 2012-05-23 07:53 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The judge will be deciding the damages on the 9 line RangeCheck function which was found to be infringed. So there is a damages phase, of sorts. The 9 lines include some blank lines. RangeCheck is a function to check if an array index is between zero inclusive and some upper bound. I imagine that Oracle has been severely financially damaged by Google having copied this highly sophisticated function.
  
  --
  
  I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
3. Re:Summary slightly wrong by R3d+M3rcury · 2012-05-23 08:37 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  One dollar. That's usually the case when you're right but it doesn't matter.
4. Re:Summary slightly wrong by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-05-23 10:21 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Oracle started with 7 or 9 patents that they thought were worth $6 billion in damages/licensing/royalties/whatever.
  But ... but ... Sun was only worth that valuation because Java was worth the price of beating Google into a cross-licensing deal on their big-database patents. Oh, dear.
  I'm wondering if all the Sun projects get cancelled now, or if the lawyers convince the board to go for an appeal. After this performance, one might expect a beheading or two.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
#0 minutes? Read the Groklaw accounts of this ... by hedronist · 2012-05-23 07:26 · Score: 4, Informative

I don't know where this "30 minutes" number came from. Maybe it was 30 minutes today, but all together it was at least 2 or 3 days, maybe even 4.
It's interesting to note that the only reason it took them that long was because the jury foreman was the only hold out in favor of Oracle. Apparently he was the one responsible for many of the questions that the jury kept sending to the judge.
Anyway, glad this is (almost) over. The only real thing left is for Judge Alsup to determine if the APIs are copyrightable at all. My personal bet is that he will rule that they are not and that this will drive a stake through the heart of Oracle and (hopefully) Larry Ellison.
But as PJ at GrokLaw keeps telling us: never make a bet on a legal ruling.
Re:Didn't take long, did it? by X0563511 · 2012-05-23 07:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

History/Karma's a bitch, huh. one troll example .
How is that a troll? It looks like a perfectly reasonable, logical, opinion. (note: we are allowed to have differing opinions, and "troll" does not mean "does not share my opinion")

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Silly Oracle, trix are for kids by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 07:32 · Score: 4, Informative

Kudos to the jury. They put a lot of effort into understanding the issue at hand. Based on courtroom reporting, the jury paid attention and they asked clarifying questions while deliberating to make sure they understood. Software patents are a mess. Oracle's arguments were terrible from a CS standpoint (and their expert should be embarrassed).
I believe the only issue still on the table is API copyrightability which Judge Aslup will rule on as a matter of law. The jury found for Oracle in that instance because the jury instructions essentially mandated it. I expect Aslup will rule for Google on that claim as well.
Oracle's current claim for money is literally for 9 lines of code called rangeCheck (which anyone in a high school intro to java class could write), and 8 test files copied by a subcontractor and never distrusted to end users.
A certain Oracle paid blogger will still manage to post how Oracle basically got everything it wanted.
Re:Didn't take long, did it? by Jeng · 2012-05-23 07:42 · Score: 3, Interesting

I love shill bashing as much as the next guy, but that is a bad example.

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Shocking! by stevenfuzz · 2012-05-23 08:21 · Score: 5, Funny

Dear Oracle, Apparently your lawyers are about the same quality as your databases. When your lawyers lost, did they email technical support and receive the answer, "Please restart your database"--you know, because they hadn't tried that 5 times.
No damages phase by DragonWriter · 2012-05-23 08:27 · Score: 3, Informative

There's still going to be a damages phase, but the numbers likely to be involved are so small that the sides agreed that the judge could set the damages himself,
That's actually not certain until we have the ruling on the SSO copyright. Per the May 16 Stipulation and Order, one of two things will happen:
1. Alsup will rule the SSO's aren't protected by copyright, in which case rangeCheck and the copied test files are the only infringements to consider. In that event, both parties have waived trial by jury and Oracle has waived any claim to actual damages or infringers profits, and Alsup will set an award for statutory damages only, and the trial will be done. (And the appeals will start.)
2. Alsup will rule that the SSO are copyrightable, in which case neither party has waived jury trial on any portion of the copyright damages, and the parties have agreed to a two-part trial on the SSO Claim damages (and, it seems, a separate part covering rangeCheck and the test files), so it looks like in that case there would be a three-phase trial on damages with a whole new jury.
Re:Jury not bribed by R3d+M3rcury · 2012-05-23 08:30 · Score: 5, Funny

One of the Jurors was dismissed for being late because of car problems. The other was dismissed for being sick.
Oh yeah, and Google couldn't have possibly caused someone to have car problems or get sick.
Wake up! Google controls everything...
Re:Didn't take long, did it? by LordLucless · 2012-05-23 10:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

It was the standard "I hate microsoft , but....(opposite argument)" troll
I believe what you call a troll, most rational people call "an argument". If you want to debunk his points, then actually debunk them, don't just try and smear the poster with ad hominem. Just to help you out, his arguments were:
1) MS-DOS wasn't that bad
2) Windows XP is viable
3) SCO is more evil that Microsoft
Incidentally, the argument he was countering was that everything Microsoft has ever done is evil, and it is the most evil software company ever. If you've got time once you've demolished the above points, you can prove that argument for extra credit.
Go to it!

--
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face